3 ms·
I think the intention with non-synonymous examples is to use those as replacements for non-literal uses of the term. E.g. reserving the use of the term "addicte
by PebblesRox 4y ago
I think the intention with non-synonymous examples is to use those as replacements for non-literal uses of the term. E.g. reserving the use of the term "addicted" for someone who actually has an addiction; only saying someone has OCD if they actually do and otherwise calling them detail-oriented.
(I agree that the document is silly but I don't think it's quite as bad as your interpretation.)
- mannykannot 4y agoI agree that's not so bad in general. In this particular case, however, when one wants to say that someone is obsessively preoccupied with irrelevant issues (which could be a valid issue), OCD is not a good choice, but 'detail-oriented' misses the point entirely.